FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199901600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

This project has been underway for 3 years at a cost of about $280K. The proposal shows virtually no ties to anadromous or resident fish. The sole tangible product is a watershed assessment, completed in August 2001. Please provide a copy of that assessment as a portion of this response. Reviewers will be interested to see how limiting factors are addressed for fish, especially steelhead, and how activities are prioritized to target critical preservation and or restoration.

Continuation funding of about $600K/year is requested for the following on-the-ground activities: replace 3 culverts, obliterate about 10 mi. of road/year, and build 2 mi. of fence. Please describe how those activities were selected via the watershed assessment process, and how they will significantly improve fish production in Big Canyon Creek.

Please describe in detail the M&E design and methods for assessing fish population responses in "surveyed streams" (Goal 4, Objective 1, Tasks B and C). Describe the system of treatment and control streams and/or reaches to be used. Exactly how will the electrofishing and snorkel-counting be done? How will the density estimates of juvenile chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and associated fish species be calculated (name an appropriate standard method for each different situation, and reference a literature source on it)? How will it be determined that the samples of fish lengths, weights, and scales from juvenile fish are "representative"? Describe how the spawning surveys for steelhead will be conducted.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages ("tiers") are provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project 199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and other entities' monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Some of the sources referenced in the proposal's text do not appear in the reference list.

Comment:

Comment:

This project has been underway for three years and funded preparation of a planning document (Big Canyon Aquatic Assessment) by the Center for Environmental Education of Washington State University. However, this report (examined by the ISRP in the response process) was never intended as a watershed assessment and does not function as such. It instead follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual that "uses a cookbook approach that walks the user through procedures that assess natural processes or features related to fish habitat and water quality. It was designed to be used by the average citizen interested in watersheds". While providing good insight into the geography and land-use patterns of the drainage, it is nearly all generic when discussing potential limiting factors and includes no fish or fish habitat data. In the view of the ISRP it does not even marginally function as an adequate watershed assessment.

The proposal shows virtually no direct ties to anadromous or resident fish and reviewers are uncertain of the streams potential to produce steelhead. Supplemental material requested from the Nez Perce SCD during the response process for project 199901500 included a 1994 report by Interfluve Inc. (funded by BLM) regarding geomorphologic measures needed to fix a problem in Big Canyon Creek: 7 miles in the central portion of the drainage goes dry every summer. The report indicates this was the result of a 1965 flood that removed fine sediment from the valley floor, and now the lack of fines results in subterranean flow, with those two factors now also limiting establishment of new riparian vegetation. The ISRP is concerned that this issue was not discussed on the field tour or in the proposal, and is confused further when the Big Canyon Aquatic assessment states that the greatest densities of juvenile steelhead occur in the central portion of Big Canyon Creek. Overall, the ISRP sees little in this proposal that argues effectively for its continuance.

An ongoing concern of reviewers is being able to attribute improvements in habitat management to fish and to fish habitat; the proposal and response do not show evidence that this difficult issue is satisfactorily resolved. See ISRP programmatic statement on M&E.

Comment:

Comments
Here is an additional $500K per annum to work on the same small watershed as the previous project. Is there $500,000 of work still to be done here?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154, 500

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website